Debates and Proceedings
of the
First Constitutional Convention
of West Virginia

January 11, 1862

Convention
met at the appointed hour. President in the chair.

Prayer
by Rev. Gideon Martin, of the M. E. Church,
Wheeling.

Journal
read and approved.

THE
PRESIDENT. The Convention when it adjourned had under consideration
the 5th section of the report of the Committee on the Legislative
Department.

MR.
HERVEY. Mr. President, before proceeding with the regular
business, I want to submit a paper to come up on the final passage
of this report, to amend the first part of the 3rd section of the
report of the Committee on the Legislative Department, and ask that
this paper be printed.

There
being no objection the paper was received and order made that it be
printed. The paper is as follows:

Until the
senatorial districts shall be differently arranged, after the next
census, taken by authority of the United States, the counties
of

TABLE

At the
first election held under this Constitution the city of Wheeling
shall elect one senator, and the counties of Brooke, Hancock and
Ohio County, one senator, and in this manner for the next three
succeeding terms. For the fifth term the city of Wheeling shall
elect two senators; and the counties of Brooke, Hancock, Ohio
County and the city of Wheeling, shall elect in the above manner
until a reapportionment of this State.

MR. VAN
WINKLE. I -will offer this amendment that I indicated
yesterday. I think it ought to come in between the 4th and 5th
sections. It relates partly to senators and partly to delegates and
if adopted should be an additional section.

"Of the
senators first elected, one from each senatorial district, to be
determined by lot, in the presence of the senate, shall serve until
the fourth day of July, 1863, and the other until the same day of
the year 1864; and delegates as elected shall serve until the same
day of the year 1863."

MR. VAN
WINKLE. I tried yesterday when offering the amendment which was
adopted to explain to the Convention the uncertainty as to what
time the Constitution would go into operation. The object of the
amendment was to make the term begin twenty days after the
election. Now if that twenty days should expire after the 4th of
July as the matter stands we have fixed it so that they hold for
two years. This is intended to make it that the first class of
senators hold until two years has expired after the 4th of July
next. So far as this feature of the amendment is concerned, it is
only to make that certain so there shall be no difficulty in
determining when the terms of these senators will end. It also
contains another feature which I have contemplated in connection
with these double districts and which I think will tend to
reconcile many to them. As I said yesterday, it is impossible to
make single senatorial districts without diminishing the members
too much. You ought to have sufficient numbers to do the business,
to divide into the proper committees, and on the other hand we have
to avoid making the senate too large. There ought to be a certain
ratio between that and the house of delegates. Of the senators
first elected, one from each senatorial district, to be determined
by lot in the presence of the senate, shall serve to the 4th of
July, 1863, the other to the same day, 1864. The effect of that in
connection with the clause passed under the report of the Committee
on Fundamental and General Provisions, would establish the rule and
the principle and the operation of one-half the senate being
elected every year, one half going out each year. The advantage of
that is very apparent, you retain one-half the senate in office.
They are familiar with the mode of business, and - what is perhaps
more important - they are practically acquainted with what you may
call the state of the business. They know the reasons and position
of the legislation of the previous session, and they, as it were,
transmit it to the next house. It will give steadiness to our
legislation, and will give us a dignity, which if the senate were
nothing but a house of delegates with smaller numbers they would
not attain. The Senate of the United States, as everybody is aware
changes one-third of its members every year, they being elected for
six years; and it is to realize the same advantages that we propose
this amendment. Everything of human institution, or which humans
have the management of is apt to be defective in some points; and
while there can be no doubt that the people are always safest under
a popular government when they have the management of their own
affairs, in their own hands, they are always safest because their
interests dictate to them what is the safest course to pursue. But
it has been found that mere popular assemblies are very apt to
decide hastily or without due consideration, and the second house
is in all our states and in the national government interposed as a
sort of balance-wheel - something to keep the motion steady, to
prevent the evils which are inherent in popular legislation; for
our form of government, while the best yet devised, has, of course,
some infirmities connected with it, or else it would belong to the
other world, not to this. The senate is introduced in order to keep
the course of legislation more steady and maintain a consistent
policy in the State; and while the senators are sufficiently acted
on by the popular will, so that it is not to be supposed they will
long persist in opposition to that will, yet at the same time,
knowing better the whole ground from their previous experience they
will act as a check on any hasty or inconsiderate legislation from
the other house - not to say by any means that all the legislation
of the lower house is to be hasty; but from the very mode of its
councils it is to be expected there will occasionally be something
of the kind. It is to me something creditable to the State of
Virginia that her policy - without saying whether that policy has
been a very good one, or a bad one, or an indifferent one - that
her policy has generally been consistent with itself. Whatever the
leading policy of the state has been, it has been very consistently
pursued. And I think notwithstanding the many things of which we
complain in the administration of our state government, yet that
one thing has atoned for a great deal of evil.

I have
more than once expressed my great desire that such a constitution
should be given to the senate as to make a house to which the best
men of the State would be willing to go if called on to do so; men
of experience, men of information as to public matters, men of
mature ripe judgment. If you get the upper house composed
altogether of such men, you would give consistency, and I must add
a beneficent tendency to your legislation which it can hardly
otherwise attain. I have expressed my opinion, sir, and I think it
must be the opinion of a majority of this Convention that from the
diverse aggregates of population in the several counties, ranging
from fifteen hundred to over thirteen thousand, and almost at every
point between it, from the peculiar location of many counties - as,
for instance, this Panhandle - the counties we are perhaps to admit
from the Valley, the counties lying in the northeastern section,
they being generally large counties - it is impossible to make a
senate of single districts that shall bear anything on its face
like fairness. I have tried it in a variety of ways; tried it for
single districts; tried it by making nearly all single and putting
in a double one or two, but I have found that would be awkward, at
any rate, and did not answer the purpose.

But I want
to suggest to gentlemen that what I now propose of an alternation
of the senators will perhaps tend to cure the evil in a great
measure. After the consideration I have given the subject of these
double districts with this provision, I should favor the double
districts because I think they will tend, occupying so much larger
territory, embracing, of course, so many more interests, that that
alone would be one of the things that would tend to give steadiness
and consistency to the legislation of the State and respectability
to the body.

As for
reducing the number, sir, that is, of course I mean not more than
one or two if that should be convenient. You will see the evil now
exhibited in the existing senate. They have but eight or nine
members, and they ought in ordinary legislation to have nearly
double that number to properly constitute standing committees. They
have as many standing committees as they have members. Well, it is
utterly impossible that business can progress when there is nobody
to do it; and I am afraid unless these Valley counties come in we
will find the same difficulty in the house of delegates, because
you will not have members, enough to distribute among your
committees to give the committees that ability to act which numbers
will give them. Every member is aware that the great labor is in
the committees; and in those of which I have been chairman no
report that I have made has been without at least one suggestion
from every member of the committee. They have all aided. Well,
again, committees will arise in course of legislation, such as we
have here, where information is to be collected and collated and
examined, and it may be very laborious. I merely throw out these
suggestions to show that we cannot well have a smaller number of
senators than we have already fixed and cannot have single
districts for that number.

I
therefore, sir, offer the amendment that I have indicated. In the
absence of the Clerk, I will read it again:

"Of the
senators first elected, one from each senatorial district to be
determined by lot, in the presence of the senate, shall serve until
the fourth day of July, 1863, and the other until the same day of
the year 1864; and delegates as elected shall serve until the same
day of the year 1863."

If the
feature of alternate elections is objected to, it had better be
stricken out, because I think that is a matter of
course.

MR.
SOPER. I submitted before the hour of recess a proposition to
this effect. I approve of all the remarks the gentleman has made;
but I would suggest to him the propriety of leaving out the dates
in the amendment.

MR. VAN
WINKLE. I had them in blank until the Convention passed on the
subject last evening.

MR.
SOPER. I had prepared a substitute intended for the second
section:

"And after
the first election, the senators of each district shall be divided
into two classes. The first class shall hold office for one year,
the second for two years; so that one-half thereof shall be chosen
annually thereafter."

MR. VAN
WINKLE. I should have been entirely contented with this. But
mine goes a little further in fixing the end of the term. Now, we
would disturb the present arrangement, if it is to be permanent, if
they were not elected until, say, August. If they had to serve two
years or three, I would terminate in August, not at the time fixed
by the Convention. Of course, if the time is altered in the one
case, it will be altered in all the others.

MR.
SOPER. That is the objection I see to it, that is fixing the
time. The time is to be a matter of uncertainty.

Mr. Lamb
addressed the Chair.

THE
PRESIDENT. The senator from Ohio. Does the senator from Tyler
give way?

MR. VAN
WINKLE. (Sotto voce) We have no senators here.

MR.
LAMB. Two distinct objects are embodied in the resolution of
the gentleman from Wood. So far as one of the provisions is
concerned, something of the kind will be absolutely necessary in
the Constitution or in the schedule. We fix the commencement on the
4th of July. We do not know at present at what time the election
may take place, and it will be necessary to provide in some way or
other for that contingency. The other provision is the one for a
classified senate - the same in substance offered before the recess
by the gentleman from Tyler and laid on the table to be printed on
his motion. Now, I would be disposed to acquiesce in this thing of
classifying the senate if the gentleman would relieve me of one
difficulty in regard to the matter, which was suggested in the
Committee on the Legislative Department, of which we have yet heard
no explanation. It is, how you carry on this classification when
you come to reapportion - when you come to make a new apportionment
under a new census. The district would then have one senator
entitled to hold his seat for one year and another entitled to hold
for two years. In making this reapportionment under the new census
with a view to classifying the population of the different
districts, it may be necessary to change the whole of the
districts. But to specify. In the apportionment adopted by the
Convention, the counties of Marshall, Wetzel and Marion constitute
a district. When you come to reapportion that district it will have
one senator in office for one year and one for two years. Now in
making a reapportionment suppose it should become necessary - which
is not at all improbable - that you put Marion, Monongalia and
Taylor in the district. Marshall and Wetzel go into a different
district and Marion into a different district. When the term of the
senator for one year elected by the district composed of Marshall,
Wetzel and Marion expires, who is to elect his successor, the
district on the one side, or the district on the other? I take it
from what occurred in the Committee on the Legislative Department,
that if they could have seen their way through this difficulty they
would have adopted the scheme of classifying the senate. It was the
only objection suggested to it; and I do not know how to get over
it. If the gentleman can unravel the riddle, I presume the
committee would acquiesce in the classification of the
senate.

MR.
SOPER. Mr. President, I suppose, sir, that whenever the
election districts are altered, it puts an end to the office of
each senator, and the legislature which makes the new apportionment
will provide for it, for elections under the new arrangement of
districts. I suppose that to be it. If there is any doubt about it,
we can very easily add a clause here putting an end to the office
of all the senators whenever a new apportionment shall be made. We
can so provide for it in the Constitution that whenever it becomes
necessary to make a new apportionment their offices shall cease and
then the legislature will provide for the manner in which they
shall deem best to have senators classified under the new
apportionment.

MR. VAN
WINKLE. My impression is different from that of the gentlemen
who have spoken. It says "for the election of senators the State
shall be divided, etc." After each census, the legislature shall
alter the senatorial districts so far as may be necessary to make
them conform, etc. That means nothing but to take one county and
change them. The districts would remain substantially the same. If
the districts were abolished, the senators would be abolished. But
I think in merely making alterations it would not have that effect.
I think the difficulty would not arise, but it could be removed if
it did. The gentleman from Tyler has suggested that
already.

MR.
BROWN of Kanawha. I do not think it is necessary or proper to
have the senate abolished at every alteration. It seems to me we
are fixing the Constitution so that when put in operation and the
representatives of the people have assembled and constituted a
legislature it should continue and that this provision which meets
my approbation, very fully, - and I confess further avoids much
objection that resulted from double districts - but I am sure that
this completely carries it out, by putting one half the senate out
every year, and that it shall be one for each district put out
every year, so that in effect throughout the State there will be an
election for a senator in each district every year at the same time
the election for the house of delegates takes place. There will
always be on hand one-half the senate who are old members with the
experience of at least one year's service and the wisdom they may
have gained in that time, as a standing and established body, a
reserve against that characteristic which the house must always
have of an entire renewal every year.

The
difficulty suggested by the gentleman from Ohio, that it might be
the district would be so altered, so arranged at least, that the
senator might be representing another county than that which
elected him. As to the first class of senators there seems to be no
serious difficulty or objection in it, for the same number of
senators, exactly, in the State would be representing the same
entire people of the State. And if the old senators were to
continue until the next election there would be no objection in the
fact of their continuing, and all the benefits of their service
would be derived in that case as in any other; perhaps more,
because in the new order of things new men would come in and
express whatever new ideas were derived by the change, and they
would become indoctrinated with the business of their vocation by
the time their co-senators whom they found in office went out, when
a successor would come in precisely on an equality with this new
senate. I think the feature is well to be preserved. I decidedly
prefer it to having the terms of the whole senate expire at each
apportionment. Now if there was to be a change in the number of
senators there might be some objection to it; but inasmuch as the
senate is to continue, I see none whatever. You fix the number of
the senate of the State, and you are preserving the one part of it
in office for the interim of one year while the new apportionment
is being applied and new senators elected. The reapportionment of
the districts should not have the effect to bring the senate to a
close.

MR.
PAXTON. Mr. President, I should like to hear the amendment
reported.

The
Secretary read:

"Of the
senators first elected, one from each senatorial district, to be
determined by lot in the presence of the senate, shall serve until
the fourth day of July, 1863, and the other until the same day of
the year 1864; and delegates as elected shall serve until the same
day of the year 1863."

MR.
PAXTON. A difficulty is suggested by fixing any particular
dates when the terms shall expire. We do not know that the terms
will commence as soon as here contemplated. If we had any assurance
that this movement would be recognized by Congress at this session;
but it may not be recognized this session, or even the next. It
might be deemed expedient to postpone the new State, and hence
would be better for us not to provide that the terms should expire
at a particular time. It appears to me the proposition of the
gentleman from Tyler would meet the difficulty.

If it
should happen that the present session of Congress should not act
on this favorably, it will be necessary that the Convention should
reassemble, for there are other things that perhaps will have to be
changed in the same way. It was to avoid the necessity of that I
made the suggestion.

MR. VAN
WINKLE. I do not like to contemplate the possibility of not
getting through this session. I think we will.

MR.
BROWN of Kanawha. I am struck with the force of the remarks of
the gentleman from Ohio, and I think we should put the Constitution
beyond this contingency, and also avoid the reassembling of this
Convention, for I presume when we adjourn, we will adjourn sine
die; and it should be so expressed in all its language
throughout that no action of the Convention will be necessary on it
again, whether Congress should act at one session or
another.

MR.
PAXTON. I move to amend the amendment by adopting the language
of the gentleman from Tyier. That will avoid the difficulty that
has been suggested, and to my mind really is one. and the
agricultural portions of your country will be finally left, a large
number of them, without any delegates. Now, sir, I recollect, that
the county where I resided in the State of New York, where
gentlemen of the Convention will recollect a number of the
delegates or members of the assembly are elected - that county,
sir, small in territory, had one member of the assembly, and she
now has seven; and it is because the city of Brooklyn has so
rapidly increased in population that it has been the cause of her
increase in representation in the house of assembly. I recollect
another county, sir - a wealthy, flourishing agricultural county
when I first became acquainted with it, which was represented by
five members of the assembly; and now, at this time, it is
represented by two. I remember other counties, sir, which had a
representation of three members in the assembly and now have but
one. And that not in proportion to the white population of the
state but because it is an organized county. You will perceive,
sir, that by the law of population, connected with trade and
manufactures and commercial pursuits which are always to be found
in the cities, the population is constantly increasing. We have
here, sir, in this new State the city of Wheeling and the town of
Parkersburg, so that the population of Ohio county and Wood county
will necessarily increase much faster than in agricultural
counties. And what will be the result? Why, sir, if you are to fix
the representation in the house of delegates according to
population, or according to the portion of it which is set forth in
the report, the result of it will be, sir, that many of those
counties which now have a delegate at the taking of the next census
will be left without a delegate. It is with a view of securing to
every county a delegate that I propose this amendment. And I have
fixed the number four thousand not that I am particularly attached
to that number - a less number would be satisfactory to me - but I
have named the number 4000 because it has been set forth here I
think in some of our reports in relation to the organization of new
counties. If the amendment that I propose prevails, every county
within this State at all times hereafter having a population of
4000 or more will have a delegate; and after giving to our county
and every delegate district within the State having that amount of
population a delegate, the additional delegates will be divided
among the counties of the State according to their population.
Wherever that goes most largely, there the number will be. Now,
sir, I want gentlemen representing the country counties here to
look at it; and I will lay this down as a fact: true, population in
most of the counties of this State will increase, but the time will
come when our agricultural counties will be filled up and the
surplus population among them must of necessity emigrate. Not so in
relation to your cities. The larger increase, the great capital,
the more extensively they are engaged in business, the greater
their population. So that if gentlemen will just look at it they
will see at once that unless there be some such guard as this the
time will come when these large cities will by virtue of their
population engross nearly all the representation of the State; and
the time may come, sir, when the representation, in the house of
delegates shall come exclusively from the cities unless you go upon
some principle of this kind. I mention to you that within a few
years back where in a single county having a single representative
in the house of assembly had seven. I could refer you to New York
City; when I first knew that city the amount of its representation
in the house assembly was ten; now it is between twenty and thirty.
While we are preparing a Constitution which is to last for all
time, it is our duty to protect our agricultural counties if we
wish them to have future legislation in the legislature; but you
can. only do it by saying that every county in your State shall
have a delegate, or that every county with a small population shall
have one. Now, sir, I have fixed the number 4000, and I hope at
least when the next census is taken every county in the State will
have that much. If it has, why then it will always be represented
in the house of delegates. It is with that view that I have hastily
set down here this morning to prepare an amendment to meet the
object which I have thus briefly explained.

MR.
LAMB. Mr. President, in order to understand fully the bearing
of this amendment it may be necessary to state briefly what is the
plan proposed in the report of the Committee on the Legislative
Department, in order that we may see where the two propositions
differ. The report of the Committee on the Legislative Department
does provide that wherever a county has a white population equal to
one half the ratio of representation it shall have a delegate by
itself. Instead of adopting a fixed number of 4000 inhabitants, the
plan here reported provides that if the population amounts to
one-half the ratio of representation the county shall have a
separate delegate. The difference between us is then here. The
gentleman adopts a fixed amount to answer for all time to come
without any reference whatever to the aggregate population of the
State. We adopt a plan. which will give a small county having one-
half the population which would strictly entitle her to a delegate
its proper separate representation. Is not this liberal enough? Is
it not fair enough? So far as we do depart from the strict
principle of apportionment of representation according to
population; so far as we do depart from that in reference to this
question it is to favor the small counties. Kanawha county and Ohio
get a representative only for 6618 white inhabitants. One of these
small counties gets one for 3309. Then the plan reported by the
Committee is that if a county has not one-half the ratio of
representation it shall be attached to a contiguous county to form
a delegate district. The gentleman has referred here on several
occasions to the State of New York. He has cited other
constitutions, I imagine from memory; but I would prefer that the
Constitution of New York should speak for itself. The 5th section
of the third article of that constitution, provides, as was read by
the gentleman from Wood yesterday:

"The
members of the assembly shall be apportioned among the several
counties of the state by the legislature as nearly as may be
according to the numbers of their respective inhabitants, excluding
aliens and persons of color not taxed, and shall be chosen by
single districts."

We then
here stand on the same footing except in one respect as the
constitution of the gentleman's own state places the counties of
that state upon, and that is simply here: When a county in New York
becomes entitled to two or more representatives in the lower house,
that county is to be divided by the supervisors into separate
districts, each one of which elects a. single delegate. Whether we
shall adopt that plan here or not is a question that has not been
raised before us. It is attended with some difficulties and it
would be attended with other great disadvantages. What do they do
with small counties? Gentlemen, when this constitution was adopted
there was one small county in the State of New York, Hamilton. The
counties of New York are large; many of them have a large
population. The number of the lower house in the State of New York
is 128. I do not recollect the number of counties, but I do not
think it exceeds 40.

MR.
SOPER. Between 50 and 60.

MR.
LAMB. Comparing the number of the house of representatives with
the number of counties, you have an abundant representation for the
purpose of apportioning representation according to population. But
there was, it seems, one small county there. How have they disposed
of it? This same section, after providing that the supervisors in
case a county is entitled to more than one member shall divide the
county into single districts, contains this provision:

"Every
county heretofore established and separately organized, except the
county of Hamilton, shall always be entitled to one member of the
assembly; and no new county shall be hereafter erected unless its
population shall entitle it to a member. The county of Hamilton
shall elect with the county of Fulton until the population of the
county of Hamilton shall, according to the ratio, be entitled to a
member."

Now, sir,
we are much more liberal here with the small counties. We say that
the county of Clay shall elect with the county of Braxton until the
population of Clay will entitle it to have a member; and it will be
so entitled when it has half the ratio. We are twice as liberal as
the gentleman's own state with these small counties.

There is
one part of the gentleman's proposition - the application which the
gentleman distinctly pointed out - in relation to which I must
confess I do not see that it has any bearing, unless it is to raise
again distinctly before this Convention the question which was
adopted and decided upon yesterday. He proposes in this amendment
that this 4000 ratio shall at each apportionment after the next
census - "after the next census," not under the present
census - for the election of delegates from counties
"containing a white population of less than 4000 shall at each
apportionment after the next census be attached to some contiguous
county to form a delegate district." The present section applies to
the present apportionment and has governed the present
apportionment. But this is only to apply after the next census; and
for the present apportionment, I presume if this be adopted, the
measure is to be followed up by our acting again on the proposition
which we thought had been settled yesterday; that these delegate
districts are to be abolished entirely until the next census and
each county is to have its separate representative. That question
has been sufficiently discussed, if the gentleman contemplates by
his motion to raise it here again. The motion, I take it, Mr.
President, is out of order; for it can only be raised before this
Convention upon a direct motion to reconsider the decision of
yesterday. The proposition - the argument rather than the
proposition - of the gentleman is a singular mode, it strikes me,
of carrying out the principle which this Convention has
established, whether it intends to act upon it or not - which this
Convention has unanimously recognized, whether it is to govern
their action or not - that so far as possible we will base
representation in the legislature upon the white population.
According to the argument of the gentleman, what it is necessary
for us to be particularly careful to guard against is an increase
of population. Those cities - for I take it the reference here in
western Virginia to large cities such as Brooklyn and New York is
mere delusion - but the gentleman's principle seems to be that
those districts where the most rapid increase of population is to
be expected are those that we are to particularly guard against;
that some check is to be put on this rapid increase in population.
Why, gentlemen, we have been told here, and it is what we all
expect, that these same small counties, these same sparsely settled
districts of country, will be the regions of the State, so far as
western Virginia is concerned, whatever may be the case in New
York, where the population of an empire is founded in the limits of
the state - but here the increase of the population is to be
expected in these same sparsely settled districts - the comparative
increase, at least. We have been told here it was our duty to hold
out all the encouragement we could to an increase of population yet
we are to be urged, when we come to apportioning representation to
be particularly careful to guard against the increase of population
giving its corresponding increase in future apportionments of
representation. Is this carrying out your principle? Is this
republicanism? Are the dangers which do exist in New York to be
apprehended in western Virginia? Are we going to have a city like
New York City, or even like Brooklyn, here on the borders of the
Ohio. I hope, gentlemen, it may be so; I should be rejoiced if it
were so; but to calculate on anything of the kind or to tell this
Convention that anything of the kind is to be so much apprehended
that you must adopt constitutional provisions to prevent its
effect, is mere delusion. Anyhow, gentlemen, if it were so, I would
go for the principle that we have adopted; I would go for the fair
application of that principle in the language of our fundamental
provisions, "as far as possible," admitting that it cannot be
carried out with precise equality in all cases. Above all things, I
do not think it is necessary for this Convention to add provisions
in their Constitution to provide against the danger of the increase
of population in any section of the country!

MR.
SOPER. Will the gentleman hand me that Constitution?

MR.
LAMB (Mr. Lamb handing it to Mr. Soper). It is on the left-hand
page.

MR.
SOPER. Yes, sir. Now, if the gentleman is so conversant with
the State of New York, he would know that the county of Hamilton
had an existence without a separate organization for a great number
of years; and it embraces a very large tract of country; which
tract in Hamilton County and in the interior of Herkimer County is
so barren, so poor, that there is scarcely anything growing upon it
and it is covered with rocks and crags and rivers, and is the
resort of people from the sea-board towns and counties during the
appropriate season of the year to go there to fish, and in the
pursuit of game to be found there. During the greater portion of
the year very few people will undertake to live there - I mean
during the winter season. And for some purpose which was deemed
necessary in order to keep peace among those people, who were
trappers in that region of country, it was deemed wisest by the
legislature to organize the county of Hamilton at a time when there
were not 600 inhabitants in it. And this I think is over thirty
years ago. And I don't believe now that there are two thousand
inhabitants in the whole county. Therefore it never had a full
separate organization and was always connected with the county of
Fulton for its police purposes. If the gentleman is conversant
about the State of New York, he will, if he knows anything about
the sale of lands there for taxes at times, find that this tract
has been known for a great number of years by, at this time a very
distinct name. It is called "John Brown's tract." This is the name
it is known by, and has been for the last thirty years. Now, sir, I
assert it as a fact that there is nothing in this Constitution to
deny it, that at the time this Constitution was amended - it was
formed in 1821 - every county that then had an organization, with
the exception of this little county had a representative in the
house of assembly. And it is only those counties which are entitled
to more than one member that the counties and cities have divided
off into districts. If any argument is to be drawn from that fact
it is in behalf of what we contended for here yesterday, that in
the lower house the delegates ought to come directly from the
locality they are intended to represent. So much did the State of
New York see the necessity of it that where a county was entitled
to more than one representative in the assembly they passed a
constitutional provision compelling the supervisors of that county
to take and lay off the county into districts so that the people in
the particular portion of the county should be represented in the
house of assembly.

Well, now,
sir, when I was up before I said here that the city of New York had
between twenty and thirty representatives in the house of assembly;
that the county of Kings had seven; and if you will look at the
county of Erie, in which Buffalo is, Monroe, in which is Rochester,
Oneida, in which is Utica, and Onondaga in which Syracuse is, and
the county of Albany, in which Albany is, or Rensselaer, in which
Troy is - and you take, sir, the members of assembly from those
cities and add them together and you will find that they have more
than one-half the lower house. It is, sir, because, the truth is,
as I have before stated, that while your cities are constantly
increasing in population, your agricultural districts are not. It
is true, sir, that we expect that for many years here our counties
will increase rapidly in population. They will of necessity do so;
but the time will come when that will cease; the time will come
when every farming tract of land over 40 acres, if you please, in
your counties on which a man can live will be occupied, and his
children as they grow up, must of necessity emigrate. Not so in
your city. It will extend up and down your river and back through
your hills after a while. Why, we cannot begin to calculate, we
cannot set limits to, the increase of population of these cities;
but you can to your agricultural districts.

Well,
then, the question comes back, whether or not the principle adopted
in the State of New York is not sound here, that every county
organized in the State ought to have a delegate. I contended for
the principle yesterday, sir; for I care so much about it as to the
counties now organized, and looking to the future. We are here in
our infancy; we are not in existence, but when we come into
existence as a State, we will be in our infancy. I shall never live
to see this state of things. There may be gentlemen here who will
be here when your cities will increase their representation in your
house of delegates till they will have control; and as a necessary
consequence, sir, the smaller counties will decrease and lose. It
is to guard against that that I am now insisting on the amendment
that I am offering here to name 4000. It is said we have got some
eight (or five) counties that have a less population than this. I
suppose there are ten of them. Showing that the counties in a large
portion of western Virginia contain but a small portion of the
people. But another fact we ought not to lose sight of is this;
that the whole territory of this portion of the State is now cut up
into small counties, there may be but very little room for the
accumulation of counties hereafter; so that there is nothing to be
feared from this increase of counties to operate with this
principle.

I do not
believe, sir - I hope - before we rise here we will not increase
this number 46, for some reasons. I am not going to touch upon it
now, but I hope gentlemen will see instead of reconsidering it the
expediency of letting it stand, and, at all events of making the
house at least two-thirds larger than the senate. But even if it is
done, sir, or is not done, there is no necessity, no fear of the
counties in this State increasing so fast that if we fix the ratio
at 4000 that there will not be members of the house of delegates
enough under the Constitution to represent the counties.

It has
been remarked that I probably spoke from recollection, in reference
to certain statements made by me yesterday in relation to the
Constitution that has been referred to. I think I can remember
matters, and I now turn to read it. "Every county heretofore
organized" - mark the words - "Every county heretofore organized
shall have a member of assembly except the county of Hamilton,"
which is of the description I have named. "Every county heretofore
organized shall have a member of the assembly, and such counties as
are entitled to more than one member shall be districted." Now,
there are counties in the State of New York, sir, composed of four
townships, with a population not exceeding probably ten or twelve
thousand; and the ratio of representation according to the last
apportionment, if my recollection serves me, is between twenty-five
and thirty thousand. I merely refer to what I had known to be the
effect of this increase of population and where I had become
satisfied of the necessity of having some limit here as to the
ratio of representation for the protection of the agricultural
counties. I have the honor to represent Tyler. That county is an
old county; has been in existence some thirty years; and although
some portions of Doddridge and Pleasants have been taken from her,
she is left with a population of but little over six thousand; and
if you do not adopt the principle I am now contending for, sir, the
time will come when she may be without a delegate.

MR.
HALL of Marion. It does occur to me that we have enough to do
without borrowing trouble, and that while we are making a
Constitution that is to last more than a day we are not making it
like the laws of the Modes and Persians, that it never can be
altered if the necessity shall arise. I am not alarmed with the
danger of being eaten up by the great and growing cities. I say let
them come and eat us! It is the very trouble that I would seek. I
protest against legislating here with reference to the precedent
set by the State of New York. We are not situated as New York has
been. We have no facility, there is no possibility, of growing or
building up such great commercial cities as exists there. We are
not to be taken by that enemy in a very few years. I am not alarmed
by any such things. I am willing to look to the experience of other
states. I am as willing to look to that of New York as of any
other; but I am unwilling if other states have erred that we should
repeat their errors here; and whenever we are asked to depart from
a proper principle to regulate our action, I do not care if every
state in this Union has done it, I would not follow their example.
A single county was the exception there that had not a delegate,
according to the statement of the gentleman from Tyier; and now
where are the figures? Why, sir, if there was but a single county
in the proposed State of West Virginia that had not the amount we
required a county shall have to be entitled to a representative the
very same case would exist in our Constitution as existed there,
and the very same clause would be incorporated in the Constitution.
What was the population of the various counties there except the
one? So there is no argument in that at all.

It is
admitted, I believe, by the gentleman from Tyler that before we are
to be swallowed up by these great cities in this country, we are
going to have an increase of population in these counties in the
rural districts. Well, then, we will have more power to strangle
these giants than now. Let us consider the work of today, and when
we are grown more powerful in the rural districts, there need be no
fear we will be able to secure whatever we are in justice entitled
to when questions affecting our rights arise. I know personally we
will never have a New York City in Marion. When we grow more
powerful if we find this great enemy getting hold of it we will
take him then by the nape of the neck and deliver him into custody;
we will bind him. But if we are to undo what we did yesterday, I
hope we will do it by a reconsideration vote. This would be an
indirect method of undoing what we did yesterday. It is a weaving
round the stump, to do a thing that we cannot, or do not choose to
do, directly. Not that the work of yesterday was done so finally
that it cannot be reconsidered; but I trust that if we are going to
reconsider it; if we are going to do anything that will have that
effect we will do it by a straight out motion to reconsider the
vote we have taken. I cannot see a particle of argument in favor of
the proposition of the gentleman from Tyler, and every argument he
has adduced is against what he asks the Convention to do. I trust
we will not undo our work; that we will not get alarmed about a
state of things that may by possibility occur next century. The
gentleman remarks that he does not expect to live to see. O, well,
I am not going to trouble myself about imaginary evils that are
coming when I am gone. I will provide against them so far as reason
may enable me to do it.

MR. VAN
WINKLE. Let posterity take care of it.

MR.
BROWN of Kanawha. The gentleman from Tyler gives very great
consideration to the Constitution of New York and the action of the
people there. I confess I do not look at it in the light he does as
supporting the principle he is seeking to establish here. The
Convention have adopted - or, rather, have decided to adopt - a
principle, on yesterday, after an elaborate discussion refusing to
give what we sought to attain, a delegate from each county. Having
refused that, this amendment of the gentleman from Tyier seems to
me to be for the accomplishment of nothing but for the purpose of,
in effect, discriminating between the counties. Now, while a man
might be very ready to give a delegate to every county I do not see
why we should undertake to violate another principle which we have
now adopted of refusing to give a delegate to each county, in order
to give it to only one of the few unrepresented counties. Now the
proposition would only give delegates to one or two more counties,
still leaving us with delegate districts. Well, now, if this
principle should be extended to all the counties, I can see no
sufficient reason for departing from that which we have adopted.
This section constituting the house of 46 members, the last clause
of it, does establish the fundamental principle that every section
or small district, county or district, shall have a delegate. The
last clause of the 5th section reads: "But every delegate district,
and county not included in a delegate district, shall be entitled
to at least one delegate." No matter how low its population sinks,
it shall be entitled to at least one delegate. But under the
proposition of the gentleman from Tyler if the county fell below
4000 it would be without a delegate. The principle of the ratio of
representation is wholly departed from. It is ignored and the
doctrine of unities is asserted in this section. Now, whenever we
depart from the counties I must confess, having looked over this
pretty carefully that I do not think you can well make better
delegate districts than are made in this report. Unless you go to
the principle of giving each county a delegate I do not think you
can better this by altering it.

There is
but one case in which the principle of having the smallest counties
united with counties adjacent and contiguous is not carried out in
this report, and that is in the case of the coun- ties of Nicholas
and Webster. Webster has 1552, Nicholas 4770. Now Pocahontas is a
smaller county than Nicholas, and it joins Webster; yet according
to the principle that has been adopted and so much contended for by
gentlemen who arranged the county representation, according to that
principle as laid down in the report of the Committee on
Fundamental Relations the counties of Pocahontas and Webster should
have been united, and not Nicholas and Webster. Because, in the
first place, they lie together; in the second place, it would have
united the two smaller numbers, and not have joined Nicholas, which
is a larger one. It is giving to Pocahontas, which has a smaller
population than Nicholas one delegate, while Nicholas, larger than
Pocahontas, has Webster associated with it. It is making the larger
still larger and the smaller still less. But, sir, the relationship
of the people of Pocahontas and Webster is not equal to the
relationship that exists between the people of Webster and
Nicholas: mountain ranges and barriers intervene between the two.
It would be uniting two distinct peoples in one delegation; and
therefore this principle of equality of representation is
subordinated by its advocates to another principle - and very
properly so.

So I
think, taking all the reasons that can be offered to bear in
support of this report on this topic; taking the relations of the
people; having departed from the principle that each county shall
have a separate delegate, you cannot do better than take it as it
is. I think these delegate districts are the best delegate
districts that you can devise, as the report stands. I therefore
oppose the amendment as proposed.

MR. VAN
WINKLE. Mr. President, I much prefer the report of the
committee to the amendment of the gentleman from Tyler; and, as a
general reason for this, that the report of the committee is
applicable to any state of circumstances in reference to population
that may arise, while the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Tyler is absolute and cannot be changed. I do not intend to go at
any length into this subject. I am satisfied with the remarks just
made in reference to the main question involved; but I would like
to give to the Convention a few figures. I find that during the ten
years preceding 1860, the period of the decennial census, the
counties of northwestern Virginia increased over twenty-five per
cent in population. I find that what are known as the southwestern
counties increased something over twenty per cent. Now, sir, we
cannot imagine that the increase of the whole of the new State will
not be at least twenty-five per cent in the next ten years. That
is, by the time when a new apportionment is to be made. If so, sir,
and the house is continued at 46 delegates - I include all counties
in this calculation - the divisor in the next apportionment will be
8260. Well, sir, in the counties tributary directly, or nearly so,
to the Northwestern Virginia Railroad, from 1840 to 1850, which was
before the ground was broken in the construction of the road and of
course had not much reference to that the ratio of increase during
that ten years was greater than twenty-five per cent. There had
been a prosperous state of things generally in the country. The
Northwestern Turnpike, from Parkersburg to Winchester, had been
made; and the increase of population, which had been waiting for
the facilities of that highway, was so great that it was about
fifty per cent during that period. Well, sir, I feel confident that
the advantages that we propose to hold out by means of our new
institutions, and the very fact of separation from the rest of the
State, justify us in looking forward to an increase of population
throughout this whole State ranging from thirty to fifty per cent;
and I believe the lowest of these percentages - certainly the
average of them - would bring up the ratio for a member of the
house of delegates of 46 to upwards of ten thousand. So that while
we are in this degree of uncertainty as to what will be the divisor
at the end of ten years, we ought not to fix a specific amount. The
rule adopted by the committee to allow a delegate for a fraction
over one-half is certainly a fair one if any counties are to be
attached to other counties.

Now, sir,
I would repeat the calculation more definitely that I endeavored to
call attention to yesterday. If we take an average rate per cent of
increase for every county in the State, you will see how rapidly
you will work injustice to the larger counties, whether cities in
them or not. Take a county of 2000 inhabitants. Now let them
increase 25 per cent, and at the end of ten years it will be 2500.
Take the gentleman's county of 6000. At the end of ten years it
will be 7500. Well, now, it is with these figures - these positive
quantities - we operate in reference to counties. The gentleman's
county would have increased 1500 while this small county would have
increased only 500, although the ratio in each case is the same. If
we are going to look forward, we ought to try to find out what is
to be the probable state of things say five years hence, as
representing the average of the whole ten years. If you will do
that, you will find that even if the larger counties were now
favored that at the end of five years even they would be disfavored
counties, although their rate of increase was not greater than that
of the small counties. But as the representation does not go by
percentage but by actual numbers, the gentleman's county would have
increased 750 while the other increased by 250. Then the one
instead of outranking the other 4000 would outrank it 5300, and the
relative disproportion would be greater. I do not doubt that every
member of this Convention is actuated by a love of justice in this
matter, and I do not hesitate to believe for one moment that even
those who propose to give to these small counties a representative
to themselves think there is a justice in that. It may be, sir, if
we were capable of doing it; but when we see it works great
injustice to others the same love of justice should teach us not to
do injustice in order to do justice. We must get a medium
somewheres between them and that is what the mode of representation
in this report attempts. It proposes if they have one-half the
ratio to give them a representative; if they have less than
one-half they must vote with some other county. That seems to me
equal justice to both. I do not think, sir, you could with any show
of justice whatever in view of the principle that equality of
representation is to prevail "as nearly as possible," give to those
counties each a representative without making your house of
delegates to consist of 100 members; and then, sir, if you did make
it consist of 100 the county of Tucker would not, by the rule that
one-half the ratio would give it a member, be entitled to one. The
ratio would be over 3000 and Tucker is short of 1400. Now, in that
view you would see how great the injustice would be to deprive
others of a fair representation in order that there may be members
where the claims are so slight. Not that you are going to deprive
them of representation entirely but to subject them to the
inconvenience, if you please, of voting with another county. That
is all.

I have
said more than I intended when I got up. I can only repeat that I
think the report of the committee is something in the nature of a
principle, while the proposition of the gentleman from Tyler is a
rule. A principle will adapt itself to any circumstances; a rule is
arbitrary and can only be worked out in one way.

The
question, on the motion of the member from Tyler was taken and it
was lost.

THE
PRESIDENT. Does the gentleman from Wood renew his
amendment?

MR. VAN
WINKLE. I propose to renew it in another shape. I offer the
following, to come in before the 5th section:

"If the
first elections of senators and delegates are held within six
months after the 4th day of July, in any year, their respective
terms of service shall be reckoned from that day; and if held
within six months next preceding that day, in any year, their terms
shall be reckoned from the 4th day of July next after such
election."

If elected
after the 4th day of July, their terms will be a little less than
two years, not exceeding two years. I believe that meets the case,
meets the objections that were made to the other.

MR.
LAMB. I would ask, Mr. President, to lay the amendment on the
table, to allow us to think about the matter until
Monday.

MR. VAN
WINKLE. I have no objections, sir.

THE
PRESIDENT. What will you do with the section - pass it
by?

MR. VAN
WINKLE. O, yes, sir; there is no immediate connection between
them.

The
question was taken on the adoption, of the section, and it was
adopted.

The
Secretary reported Section 6 as follows:

"6. After
each census hereafter taken by authority of the United States, the
delegates shall be apportioned as follows:

The ratio
of representation for the house of delegates shall be ascertained
by dividing the whole white population of the State by the number
of which the house is to consist, and rejecting the fraction of a
unit, if any, resulting from such division.

Dividing
the white population of every delegate district, and of every
county not included in a delegate district, by the ratio thus
ascertained, there shall then be assigned to each, a number of
delegates equal to the quotient obtained by this division of its
white population, excluding the fractional remainder.

The
additional delegates which may be necessary to make up the whole
number of which the house is to consist, shall then be assigned to
those delegate districts, and counties not included in a delegate
district, which would otherwise have the largest fractions
unrepresented. But every delegate district and county not included
in a delegate district, shall be entitled to at least one
delegate."

MR.
LAMB. I can only say in reference to this that it is the plan
which has been finally adopted by Congress in apportioning
representation in the House of Representatives of the United
States. The matter of the principle of making that apportionment
had been under discussion at different periods in the Congress of
the United States since 1789 down to 1850. This plan was adopted as
the most equal of any other that could be devised. As a merely
arithmetical proposition giving us an adequate number in the house
of delegates, it does, as near as possible apportion representation
according to population. It does accomplish that result as an
arithmetical proposition nearer than any other principle that can
be adopted. These were the considerations which recommended it to
Congress, where it was adopted by the act of May 23, 1850. These
are the considerations which recommended it to the committee. It
accomplishes another object. This rule avoids controversies in
regard to the distribution of fractions. They are kept out of the
legislative halls and conventions. It becomes thus a matter of
figures simply. You will have no squabbling in your legislature
about fractions because the figures will decide it according to the
census; and if a question arises between two counties, the county
which has the largest fraction gets it. It is certainly fair that
where you are to distribute to fractions, the members should go to
the counties which have the largest fractions. It is simply the
principle of the whole matter.

MR.
RUFFNER. There seems to me a propriety in authorizing the State
to take a census and make the apportionment on it. In order to
bring this idea before the Convention I would move that after the
words "United States" the words "or of the State" be
inserted.

MR.
LAMB. I do not know that there can be any objection. The
Committee considered the question of making an apportionment
according to a State census, and of requiring a State census; but
the great expense of taking the census was one great objection to
it. Then as a census is provided for by the Constitution of the
United States every ten years, as long as the Constitution of the
United States operates over West Virginia, and as long as West
Virginia exists it will operate over it, a census has to be taken
under that Constitution every ten years. We supposed this was
sufficiently often to bring up this question of representation with
all its embarrassments and difficulties and ill feeling. I have no
particular objections to the gentlemen arranging that matter as
they see proper. If they want the census and apportionment oftener
than each ten years, it might be necessary to make such an
amendment as the gentleman proposes. If the Convention should
determine, however, that once in ten years is often enough to bring
up this question, why, as long as the Constitution of the United
States exists we will have a fair census by which we can make our
apportionments without any expense incurred by the State in taking
it.

MR. VAN
WINKLE. While I should be disposed to object to the provision
which the gentleman from Ohio has alluded to absolutely requiring
that a census should be taken intermediate between the United
States census on account of the reasons he has stated, that it is
an expensive matter, yet I apprehend that the amendment as offered
by the gentleman from Kanawha is not objectionable - at least it is
not so to me. If circumstances should arise such that the people
should demand of their representatives that they should order a
census to equalize the representation, it would leave them free to
do it. I do not think, however, sir, that I would propose the
amendment in this connection nor make it one absolutely requiring a
census to be taken. But if that matter is to be left to the
legislature, the people instructing them, I shall have no objection
to the amendment.

The
question was taken on Mr. Ruffner's motion, and the amendment
rejected.

The
section was then adopted.

MR.
IRVINE. I would like to have one word to say before this
question is taken.

The vote
adopting the section was reconsidered by general
consent.

MR.
IRVINE. I dislike very much to intrude myself on the house
under the circumstances. I do not rise to make a speech, nor would
I insist on having anything to say on this occasion but for the
fact that it seems to me there is a flaw in this section, which
has, I suppose, if it is a fact, escaped the notice of the vigilant
chairman of the committee. This 6th section may work possibly. If
it does - if you can work out this section so as to apportion the
representation, it would be the result of an accident, it seems to
me. The ratio of representation here now is 6618. Well, then, you
will assign one representative for every 6618. When the
apportionment is made in future, the ratio will be much larger; but
that does not affect the argument. So for every 6618 you have one
provision. You are guided, then, by the ratio in all the districts
and large counties in apportioning the representation. Suppose that
there were no fractions at all. Then you would assign to each
district and to each large county one representative for every 6618
inhabitants; no fractions. In additions to this - I adopt the 6618
for the purpose of illustration - in addition to this, you are to
assign to all the small counties where the population exceeds half
of this amount a representative, yet at the same time to be
confined to 46 representatives. This thing will not work
out.

MR. VAN
WINKLE. Will he permit me to tell him he is mistaken. I have
tried it on six or seven different ratios, and it always works
out.

MR.
IRVINE. Well, sir, it is perfectly obvious to my mind that it
would be the result of accident. It might work out in a given
instance. But suppose the fractions were not sufficient to make up
for the deficiencies, the thing would not work at all. In
consequence of their being large fractions to compensate for
allowing to small counties where they exceed one-half a
representative, it might possibly work; but this would be the
result of accident. It might so happen that it would work. For
every 6618 inhabitants the counties are entitled to one
representative. If there were no fractions it would not work at
all; because in a number of instances where there was a great deal
less than 6618 inhabitants you would be entitled to a
representative. It might accidentally work out right. The fractions
might be sufficient to make up the deficiencies, but this would be
the result of accident, and I do not think the working of any
provision in the Constitution ought to depend on
accident.

I have
expressed myself rather badly on the occasion owing to
embarrassment; but it is clear to my mind if it works out it will
be the result of accident.

MR.
LAMB. The gentleman's objection, of course, is a radical one to
the whole section. If there is force in it, it is necessary for the
Convention to dispense with the whole. But I think the objection
made is founded altogether on a mistake, and that the gentleman's
own statement makes the mistake apparent. He proceeds, in the first
place, to suppose that there are no fractions. Now if there are any
counties with a less number than 6618 there are fractions. The
population of such counties come into the column of fractions at
once. So far as those counties are concerned, they are all
fractions. So that his supposition is inconsistent with itself.
That the number might be so exhausted by making up one delegate to
each of these small counties that you would not have any delegates
to assign to larger ones, as well as I can see into his objection .
. .

MR.
IRVINE. I only supposed for purposes of illustration that there
were no fractions in order to show it would not work when there
were no fractions.

MR.
LAMB. Then if there are no fractions, there can be no counties
of less than 6618, or exactly twice that, or exactly three times
that.

MR.
IRVINE. I may explain again to the gentleman. I was speaking of
fractions in those cases where the counties or districts would be
allowed a representative, one or more representatives; then there
may be fractions left. I speak of the fractions in those cases in
which the counties are entitled to one or more representatives as
being sufficient to make up for the deficiency in a number of
counties which would be entitled to a representative where there
were not 6618 inhabitants. Thus, 20 counties would be entitled to
20 representatives. Well, then, suppose the other counties should
contain 3618 inhabitants. In that case it certainly would not work,
because you would have a great many more than 46 members. I cite
this merely for the purpose of illustration. If there were twenty
counties having precisely 6618 inhabitants, and the other counties
had 3618 inhabitants, all the other counties would be entitled to a
representative each, and the number of representatives would exceed
46. So that if the thing would work at all, it would be the result
of accident that the fractions in the counties which are entitled
to one or more representatives would be sufficient to make up any
deficiency.

MR.
LAMB. There is a great deal of difficulty in discussing a
matter of this kind which is to be decided by logarithms and
algebra, and not by a speech on the floor of the Convention. But I
think I can satisfy the gentleman that under this section there
cannot possibly be any difficulty in working it out.

You have
44 counties; you have a house of 46. If you make a number of
delegate districts, say six or any other number, you reduce the
number of counties. We have made in this proposition six delegate
districts. We have six districts and 21 counties, making 37
districts and counties to which 46 members are to be distributed.
Now the provision is that each one of the 37 shall have at least
one delegate. You start with that. But says the proposition, every
delegate district and county not included in a delegate district
shall be entitled to at least one delegate. This is the exception.
Whatever may be the effect of other provisions that is to govern.
Then, in any way you can fix it, you secure some representation to
every county and to every delegate district. As long as you have
got 46 members to distribute and 31 counties and six districts to
give it to. Or if you destroy the delegate districts entirely you
have 44 counties to give it to. The balance merely operates on the
excess. The gentleman's difficultly would exist if you had 44
counties to assign delegates to and were to adopt the motion that
was suggested the other day to make the house 36. I can imagine a
possible case in that state of facts on which you could not work.
But there is no possible case where the number of your delegates
exceed the number of counties in which this "won't work." It may
not work equally unless you have considerable excess but some way
or other that will work wherever the number of delegates to be
assigned is equal to the number of districts and counties to which
they are to be assigned. I state this as a clear arithmetical, or
algebraic or logarithmic proposition. As to the thing merely
working in case of accident, I would inquire if the gentleman has
ever tried to work it out in any possible state of the
case?

MR.
IRVINE. I have not thought of it until this morning.

MR.
LAMB. Well I have; and I worked it out in a great many cases
and I have found no difficulty in applying it. I have here a paper
submitted to the committee in which we apply the principle to a
house of 42, a house of 45, of 48 and of 50 members; and I have
figured out since the application of it to a house of 54 and a
house of 46. There is no difficulty at all in working it out. It
always comes out. The gentleman on my right (Mr. Van Winkle) has
applied it in sundry cases in which I have not. He applied it to
the 39 counties or to a house of odd numbers, and there was no
difficulty in working it through. But the gentleman's difficulty
would only exist if you had a house much less in number than the
counties or districts to which you had to apply your apportionment.
If you had a house of 36 and were obliged to apportion it among 44
counties and districts, there might be a possible case. Well, it
might require a greater difference than that. But there can be no
possible difficulty in working it out as a sum in arithmetic where
the number of delegates is equal to the number of districts to
which you have to apportion them. That I set down as a fixed fact
at any rate. As long as you have got 46 delegates and only 44
counties, there can be no possible difficulty of working it
out.

The
question on the adoption of the section was resubmitted and it was
adopted.

MR.
BATTELLE. Before we adjourn, I wish to give notice to the
Committee on Education to meet in their room Monday morning at half
past eight o'clock.

MR.
HERVEY. I wish to inquire whether the chairman of the Committee
on the Legislative Department designs to move the adoption of the
whole report now or let it lie over until it comes up for revision.
The reason I make the inquiry is this: I handed him a paper this
morning which is designed to be a substitute for part of this
report and I hope the vote will not be taken until that substitute
is printed and before the members.

MR.
LAMB. I suppose the proper course with regard to this report
will be after we have considered the report section by section and
adopted such amendments as may seem expedient to the Convention, to
lay over the whole report.

MR.
SINSEL. Have it reprinted, won't you?

MR.
LAMB. Well, that may be necessary.

MR.
STEVENSON of Wood. O, Yes; it had better be printed.

MR.
LAMB. But I don't think we ought to hurry the final vote on a
report of this nature. Even after we have gone over it section by
section and amended and made it as good as we can get it. I dare
say there will be still an abundance of defects in any piece of our
work.

MR.
HERVEY. I then understand, Mr. President, there will be no
motion to adopt the report at this time?

MR.
LAMB. Only to go over it section by section and adopt each
section; and it will finally come up some other time.

MR.
HERVEY. Yes, sir.

The
Convention then took a recess.

AFTERNOON SESSION, THREE AND A HALF O'CLOCK, P.
M.

*The Convention re-assembled.

Mr. Ruffner presented six petitions, signed by one hundred and
fifty-nine citizens of Nicholas county, stating that no election
was held in said county in October last for a delegate to this
Convention, and praying to be represented here by John R.
McCutchen. On motion of Mr. Ruffner, John R. McCutchen was admitted
to a seat in this Convention, as a delegate for the county of
Nicholas.

Mr. McCutchen appeared and took the oath embraced in the
ordinance for the reorganization of the state government.

Mr. Van Winkle moved to amend the 7th section by inserting in
the 69th line, after the words "two delegates," the words "of whom
the county of Wood shall elect one delegate, and the counties of
Wood and Pleasants shall together elect one delegate."

Pending the consideration of which,

Mr. Warder moved to reconsider the vote by which the 2d section
was adopted, and the question being upon reconsiderating, it was
decided in the affirmative.

Mr. Haymond moved to amend the 2d section, by striking out the
word "forty-six," in the 7th line, and insert "fifty-six."

Mr. Lamb moved to amend the amendment by striking out
"fifty-six," and inserting "fifty-four."

Mr. Lamb then moved to lay all the motions on the table for the
present, which was agreed to.

And, on motion of Mr. Hervey, the Convention adjourned.

*As reported in the Journal of the First Constitutional
Convention, 1861-62.

**The seventh section of the Report of the Legislative Committee
was taken up and reported:

7. Until a new apportionment be declared under the next census
to be taken by authority of the United States, the counties of
Calhoun and Gilmer shall form the first delegate district; Clay and
Braxton the second; Pleasants and Wood the third; McDowell, Wyoming
and Raleigh the fourth; Tucker and Randolph the fifth; and Webster
and Nicholas the sixth. And the apportionment of delegates shall be
as follows:

To the third delegate district, two delegates; and to the other
five, one each.

To Harrison, Kanawha, Marion, Marshall, Monongalia and Preston
counties, two delegates each. And to Ohio county, three
delegates.

Mr. Van Winkle moved to insert after "to the third district, two
delegates," in the second paragraph, these words: "of whom the
county of Wood shall elect one delegate, and Wood and Pleasants
together shall elect another delegate.

After considerable discussion of this amendment,

Mr. Warder moved (such a motion taking precedence) to reconsider
the vote by which the second section was adopted, in order to
afford opportunity for a motion to strike out "forty-six" as the
number of the house of delegates, as then proposed, and substitute
"fifty-four."

The motion to reconsider was agreed to.

Mr. Raymond then moved to strike out "forty-six" and substitute
"fifty-six."